14 March 2013 1:53 PM

On Impartiality

When the wise man points at the Moon, the fool looks at the finger. And I’m afraid there are quite a lot of examples of this problem in the response to my posting about the BBC. Various people on Twitter, including Mehdi Hasan, the presenter of the programme for which the BBC apologised, have discounted what I say as some sort of complaint about my treatment. I have to say that Mr Hasan’s hostile tone on ‘Twitter’ is itself interesting.

These critics are much like the cyclists in Kensington gardens who, when I ask them politely not to ride their machines on footpaths clearly marked with signs saying ‘No Cycling’ in letters ten inches high, respond with the words ‘Get a Life!’. They seem to think that this is a devastating riposte. As it happens, and I thank providence for it, my life has been much blessed, and may possibly have been as satisfying and enjoyable as the ones those cyclists lead. The point remains, these cyclists are doing something wrong, and the fault is in them, not in me for pointing it out to them.

It is of course perfectly possible that I do sometimes indulge in self-pity. Most people do. And I can’t say I positively enjoy the individual insults about my character, appearance, etc, which are bestowed upon me by the Twitter Mob and the ‘Comment is Free’ mob. Though I do take a general pleasure in being the target of such fury, from such people.

And I would certainly like to do more broadcasting for BBC Radio Four, the most important speech channel in this country by a mile, and one I listen to a lot, which reaches an audience I very much wish to reach. I’d even be glad of the chance to do more TV presenting. It may be that I’d be no good at it. Certainly, if my voice really is as portrayed on ‘What the Papers Say’, it would be unreasonable to expect much radio work. Even the wit of Bernard Shaw or the eloquence of Demosthenes would sound pretty terrible in *that* voice. By the way, as my recording of the programme was supplied by the BBC, I believe it is their copyright and I have no lawful right to put it on the Internet myself.

But even if this is so, the real point remains the one of impartiality . Did the BBC fail to show due impartiality on ‘What the Papers Say’?

Rather than deal with this, my enemies will drag up almost any other subject. One Twitter critic said that a BBC run by me would be like the Taleban. This is a common misconception of defenders of the current left consensus. They think that conservatives want some sort of Fox TV, in which blatant rightist propaganda is woven into every paragraph, and everyone sucks up to ‘right-wing’ politicians.

Nothing could be more wrong. I have for years advocated what I call ‘adversarial broadcasting’ in which all presenters would openly acknowledge their bias, instead of pretending they had none, and in which every major current affairs programme would always be double-headed – presented by two people of opposing views so that nobody was ever interviewed by a friend, and so that any assumptions peddled by one side could be challenged on air, at the time, by the other. The BBC’s current strong bias towards intervention in Syria, for instance, could not have survived such a system.

This would require the abandonment of the concept of the ‘centre’. This involves the arrogation to themselves of automatic, unchallengeable rectitude, by an elite sharing a consensus. That consensus is from then on permanently shielded from attack or criticism, because those outside the ‘centre’ are - automatically - either wholly excluded, or allowed to broadcast only under strict conditions ( as I am). These special conditions (always on the end seat, asked questions beginning 'are you seriously suggesting that...?', denied the last word, compelled to raise their voices to get a hearing, etc etc etc) mark them out as dissenters whose main purpose is to provoke entertaining debate, but who are not fundamentally a serious part of the national discussion. The existing system of the approved ‘centre’ can and does co-exist with a formal ‘impartiality’ between the political parties, which can be demonstrated to be more or less working at any time when the general bias of the system is attacked.

Of course, it doesn’t work if any party strays too far from the anointed ‘centre’, in which case the BBC is openly hostile, as it was to the Tories in the Thatcher era, and especially during the Hague and IDS periods. Litmus tests for membership of the ‘centre’ are attitudes on the European Union, on immigration, on public spending, on crime and punishment and on education. Increasingly the sexual revolution and drugs are part of this test as well.

Anyone who has ever invited me to speak to a public meeting will know that I always say I would much prefer to debate with an opponent. Having experienced so much unfairness in debates, I am keenly aware of what fairness ought to look like, and rather keen on it as a concept and a practical duty. How can you win – or lose – an argument that has not been fairly conducted?

I recently chaired a debate on same-sex marriage, posted here a few weeks ago, and I would challenge anyone to show that I did so in a partial manner, though one of the debaters was a friend of mine whose view was also much closer to my own than his opponent’s.

When the then Talk Radio asked me to present a weekly radio programme on current affairs, I suggested that it should be double-headed, and that my co-presenter should disagree with me on the whole moral, cultural social and political spectrum. I still think it was a very entertaining and interesting programme, and I miss it every week.

Various people have said that the BBC has some conservative presenters. Well, one can argue about the politics of, say, Andrew Neil or Jeremy Clarkson. But even if, for the sake of argument, I accepted that they were conservative in my understanding of the term, that still makes just two out of scores of BBC presenters whose true views it is not very hard to ascertain from their known tastes, interests, their tones of voice, their manner of questioning, their decisions on who gets the last word, and so on.

I once asked Mark Thompson, when he was Director-General, if he could think of a single BBC presenter who could give a hard time to Clive Stafford Smith, the noted campaigner against the death penalty, and he was stumped.

I don’t think he should have been. The BBC should draw from a much wider pool of people for its presenters. But it won’t, until it understands that it is biased, and how it is biased. That is why I pursued this case - because it was a rare instance of an objectively measurable action which explained and exposed the nature of that bias. True, the BBC recognised that they had done something wrong. But they sought to rob it of any significance by insisting that it was a ‘mistake’, not requiring any deeper explanation. I’ll let you know if anything else happens.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Brian, Coventry, thanks for your reply, but as i previously indicated, i don't think that we are disagreeing about anything much here.

Bye the way, PH is very open about his past (political) daliances - unlike perhaps those sailors on shore leave you reference in your last post - so no need for Wikipaedia research. ....'clog' - i didnt know that; ......but 'magic manual' - I do hope thats not another of your misplaced missives about our host and his Holy Book?

@mikebarnes,
clog is a contraction of corporate log as opposed to biographical log. "Corporate" indicates that the log piggybacks on the mailonline website instad of being an independent blog.

@Libertarian Socialist,

The sentence in question should read "I would prefer to listen to lifelong conservatives instead of ex-lefties with immoderate fervour of converts who criticise those of us who have always been conservative for not being right wing enough." I am aware of Mr Hitchen's wikipedia entry. The point I was making was that I do not welcome being told that what I think is wrong by someone who has sampled the political and belief "isms" like a sailor on shore leave sampling the optics behind the bar. I'm an empiricist who believes in learning from experience and that every problem has its own solution instead of thinking that everything can be solved by the instructions in magic manuals.

The debate about the impartiality, or alleged lack of it, by the BBC, fostered by commentators on the right such as PH, (and sometimes by those on the left) tends to neglect an important and rather intriguing point. Of course impartiality, or partiality, is in the eye of the beholder. One man's bias is another's even-handedness, and vice versa. It depends on your point of view. No such thing as absolute impartiality is really achievable in practice. But the BBC, and other TV news and current affairs outlets such as ITN and Sky, interpret impartiality as a matter of giving each of the three main parties an equal crack of the whip. But of course, as PH would riposte, it is often the case that there is an elite consensus our of kilter with public opinion. It would be difficult for these news outlets to reflect the true balance of opinion without resorting to representatives of smaller parties, and maverick individuals, which would present its own set of difficulties. As someone else on this thread pointed out George Galloway, for example, doesn't get any more, or more favourable, exposure than PH. It is not really the BBC's fault (or ITN's or Sky's for that matter) if the main parties do not reflect the actual balance of public opinion on so many issues.

@Brian from Coventry.
* I;m reluctant to make futher comments on this clog * Sometimes typo's make hilarious nonsense.
Like is your clog uncomfortable. Or you only have one leg, clog singular rather than clogs,
Do they still wear them oop north.
Serious now . Most BBC oiks refer to Coventry as Cuventry. How do locals pronounce it . Whether wearing clogs or more modern foot attire.

...but that was precisely my point....Peter Hitchens is NOT a 'lifelong conservative' (neither, bye the way, is he a lifelong Christian, being a former atheist). PH was a Labour party member until the mid 80's and a former Trotskyist to boot.

No, popularity isn't the be all and end all, but in most sectors, it probably is a major factor in terms of aims. Popular makes of cars, popular entertainment, popular football teams, popular brands of vacuum cleaners - even public libraries with a range of facilities - could be described as 'popular'. Most staff would, I imagine, rather work for a 'popular' organisation than the opposite. No doubt the BBB would be more 'popular' with some if it launched a Fox-style News channel, but, with others, it might not.

As for the BBC attempting to 'be all things to all men', that seems to be contrary to the beliefs of those who claim they don't watch it, complain bitterly about it if they do, or urge others to abandon it. What is needed, perhaps, is another non-commercial channel that refrains from urging us to buy all sorts of rubbish or spend our spare cash in betting shops! I mean, it might be very popular...

I'm reluctant to make further comments on this clog, but I could not allow your response to my comment to go unchallenged.
In my haste to submit a comment, I omitted to insert "However, " before "I would prefer, etc". My intention was to show that the media was amply provided with converts, but lifelong conservative pundits were rarely heard - it's almost as if an adolescent inoculation of lefty daftness renders conservative converts invisible to the PC antibodies in the broadcasting body.

I had not detected a stammer in Mr Hitchens' speech, instead believing any hesitancy to be a polite reaction to other people interrupting him. I stand by my suggestion because his breadth of knowledge would make him an excellent Just A Minute panellist.

Ah, popularity is all isn't it? The new orthodoxy. What I discovered at the Beeb were many thousands of staff whose main preoccupation was chiefly themselves and the compulsary TV Tax that would ensure the continuation of their very cosy existence. Perhaps popularity is not the correct description. A better definition would be when a critical mass of public opposition to the TV Tax starts to gain traction. To ward off that evil day the corporation desperately tries to become all things to all men.

Brian Coventry….Ok…. if you weren’t being ironic, then I am left bemused by your main criticism about right-wing converts; after all Peter Hitchens is not a’life-long conservtive’, anything but in fact. And given PH’s slight stammer, I think that your call for him to appear on Just A Minute - if not an attempt at humour - is just being cruel.

During my time working at the BBC I spent many hours of existential pondering as I grappled with the perplexing question "What exactly is the BBC for?"

I had entered the corporation as a keen, wet behind the ears Broadcast Assistant convinced that I was performing a valuable public service. As time passed and I experienced first hand the value-free, self-obsessed, complacent cack-handed attitudes of most of the staff I found my answer.

The BBC is there to be, and remain, popular. End of story. That's it. Honest.

Pop: surely, a better solution than more state meddling is clearly defined cycle lanes and the enforcement of the law? How would bike licences solve anything? They don't prevent car and motorbike accidents. I'd be very surprised if there aren't plenty of injuries to pedestrians (especially elderly ones) in the Netherlands due to the blurring of boundaries between cycle-lanes and footpaths.

Its funny how things pan out. When I was a super fit warden, for wont of a clearer term .That retired retail magnate lately of south Yorkshire,, called me a mercenary. Now he wishes all sorts of ills on dog owners and cyclists .
The pot and kettle come to mind. Turns out he's a closet nasty all along.

As explained, this item was about the use of bikes in a public park. As to compulsory insurance, licenses and registration, this site is generally in favour of 'smaller government' rather than further layers of bureaucracy.
Personally, I'd be in favour of super-fit, bike-riding park wardens, armed with metal rods that can be thrust between the spokes of speeding bikes... and something of a similar nature for dog owners who let their pets foul the park!

Brian, Coventry, good ironic post (15 March, 2.08pm) or am I wrong? Particularly the bit about looking forward to PH’s appearance on Just a Minute (although I seem to recall that Clement Freud seemed to get by?). Your comment about ‘mature women’ (read old woman?) didn’t escape me either….. As for helpfully critiquing PH’s TV style – I have attempted before to highlight his posture, (abnormally large and plastic) pen fiddling, etc. But will he listen? Actually, I think he has - at least the QT slouching has gone - but he would never admit it.

@ Alan Hill.
The Licence fee. is not for the BBC .It is for the equipment needed. Back when we had just one channel this idea was born .Tax telivision ownership Thereby providing a free service by diverting that tax to the BBC.
The fact you may only watch stations other than the BBC is no defence. The TV is the proof that the tax must be paid.
The BBC enforce this rather than the exchequer, but have recently employed a private company to collect from those who haven't paid . This of course presents a problem .In that the company concerned has no right of entry. No policing rights at all.
In answer to another, a Mr Dalrymple. The only way legally to not pay is basically, do not own a TV . A closed loop as in security, doesn't need one . If one can prove a TV is only used to watch pre-recorded stuff, and is in no way connected to a cable or digital ariel. A precedent has been made.
But the major point is that the licence fee is for a TV set not the BBC . Today there exists these minature screens that can pick up via a wireless connection .So much policing will be required. For they need a licence albeit the one you might have for your TV at home should cover it.
Dont forget also, at some point in the future the authorities are planning a licence requirerment for each individual TV in ones home.

"(always on the end seat, asked questions beginning 'are you seriously suggesting that...?', denied the last word, compelled to raise their voices to get a hearing, etc etc etc)"

More examples:

1) In one QT Dimbleby asked Peter Hitchens to spell 'accommodation', but as far as I know, there is no other case of Dimbleby ever trying to catch out any other panellists in this manner.

2) In another QT, all the panellists were asked to recite a poem. Dimbleby knew that Peter Hitchens would shine at this one, and so when it came to PH’s turn, Dimbleby tried to move on to the next topic without giving Peter Hitchens the chance to recite. Peter Hitchens had to interrupt in order to get his turn.

3) On another programme, when it was Peter Hitchens’ area of expertise Dimbleby kept interrupting, but on some other question about something not controversial, there was no interruption. Peter Hitchens clearly did not want to use up his ‘share’ of time on this topic, and I guess he knew what Dimbleby’s plan was, and this probably explains why Peter Hitchens gave a one word answer on that occasion.

"Comment is Free" is the flip side of the same coin best described by the anonymous saying, 'Liberals are very broadminded: they are always willing to give careful consideration to both sides of the same side'.

Colm J said
" The great charm and warmth of the Dutch people seems to desert them completely when they mount a bicycle, overtaken by an aggressive contempt for the rights of pedestrians. Walking down a central street in the country's cities requires vigilance."

My reply,
Surely then this is an argument for keeping cyclists off the road where the capacity to cause serious injury and death is far greater?
The solution to all of this is to have all compulsory insurance and licenses for cyclists and the registering of cycles, just as with cars if they are to continue using the road systems .

I have a lot of respect for you as a writer, and while generally being economically on the left (albeit, also a social libertarian), your blog is one of few i check on a daily basis. Typically you take on hard targets, and confront uncomfortable truths; particularly with regards to addiction. But i can't help but feel this blog entry, and the other BBC one, read as if they were the product of bitterness (something that i may be, and certainly hope i am, wrong about).

The BBC may not give you your own show, but you are still one of few journalists to regularly appear on their network (something that after your condemnation i will suspect you shall be in future be reluctant to do). Moreover, they do this despite that your views deviate a lot from mainstream politics. And by that i don't mean that as 'liberal' - rather i mean it as labour vs tory; the two factions by which elections are fought nowadays.

In addition, if the BBC have such a bias, i would also ask what left wing figures, that deviate from the standard party lines, actually get the kind of coverage you're talking about. How often do you see George Galloway (a figure i would compare you to in terms of strength of beliefs, albeit, on a different end of the political spectrum) getting his own BBC platform beyond the far end of a long table or being patronised by Paxman? I think the BBC has this same attitude towards anyone who's beleifs deviate strongly from the two party political system that we've gotten ourselves in to.

Finally, that and i also feel you do yourself a disservice by the choice of publication you associate yourself with - one that is generally thought to be knee-jerk, has consistently shown itself to have a history of hypocrisy and works of an almost entirely emotional basis. If you want to be taken more seriously, i would strongly urge a different conservative outlet like The Telegraph, The Times or The Spectator rather than a paper/ site that often reads like a satire of itself and caricatures its opposition as much as any BBC impression does.

Mr Hitchens,
I can't understand why the BBC don't employ you more when they offer work to Melanie Phillips (Moral Maze) and Janet Daley (Dateline London) and they are former lefties turned right wingers (and also mature women). I would prefer to listen to lifelong conservatives instead of ex-lefties with immoderate fervour of converts who criticise those of us who have always been conservative for not being right wing enough.
As for your voice, perhaps you could try varying the pitch and pace of your speech, a voice coach could give expert tuition on the whole process of speaking - posture is an important factor for example. It worked for me, if that's a recommendation. I look forward to your debut on Just A Minute.

I'm all for the rights of cyclists but the plight of pedestrians in the Netherlands refutes any notion that cycling on footpaths is a victimless offence. The great charm and warmth of the Dutch people seems to desert them completely when they mount a bicycle, overtaken by an aggressive contempt for the rights of pedestrians. Walking down a central street in the country's cities requires vigilance. Strangely the Dutch authorities turn a blind eye to cyclists' routine flouting of the law, and yet treat victimless jay-walking as an offence.

Of all the deeply unpleasant aspects of Comment is Free the worst has to be its deliberately misleading title. Perhaps Rusbridger might think of amending it to "Comment is Free as long as it's the comment of spineless, screeching anti-Christian bigots, who rush whining to the moderator whenever they are challenged"? A bit long-winded perhaps but accuracy should always trump pithiness in my view.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.